2012-04-18_REVISION - M1984014 (13)

Home Browse Search

Response to DRMS Adequacy Review — Cotter JD -8 Mine Reclamation Plan Amendment include the upper affected area in the EPP. See e.g., EPP page 33 (Cotter declining to provide any surface water detail for the upper area). This is not allowable under the MLRA and implementing regulations. For example, Rule 6.4.21 specifically requires that the EPP include discussion of "all areas ... that will be or have the potential to be affected by uranium mining. " Here, because the upper site is included in the permit, it must be detailed in the EPP. This is especially true, where, as here, the operator admits that the area has the potential to be affected in the future. EPP at 2 ( "However, future exploration drilling may locate sufficient resources to require use of the upper mine waste area and ore storage pad. '). Cotter cannot have it both ways. The company cannot maintain the upper mine area in its permit, and keep open the ability to conduct ground disturbing activities on those lands, yet refuse to provide the EPP information required under the MLRA and Board Rules. The DRMS should require Cotter to provide a complete EPP and not one that unilaterally selects only certain portions of the site at Cotter's convenience. Other portions of the regulations specifically call for detailed information for all areas within a specified distance (i.e. 2 miles) of the operation. See Rule 6.4.21 (throughout). The Division should require that Cotter submit all information required under the regulations, and not just the data Cotter chooses to provide. Cotter response: As stated in the Amendment Application, the proposed upper affected area on the DOE JD -8 lease tract has not been affected at this time. Cotter currently anticipates that the proposed upper affected area on top of Monogram Mesa for the mine waste pile and ore storage pad will not be required. However, if the upper mine waste area and ore storage pad are required in the future, the EPP will be updated to address this area prior to any new disturbance on the lease tract. All Contemplated Storm Water Mitigation Measures Should Be Implemented Immediately As briefly mentioned above, Cotter appears to propose in its Construction Schedule (EPP section 10, page 50) that the additional proposed stormwater management would only be contingent on resumption of mining. This proposal should not be accepted by the Division. Notably, even the (inapplicable) "intermittent status" designation requires the operator to comply with all "reclamation, performance standards and Enviromnental Protection Plan requirements. "Rule 1.13.7(a). The proposal to hold off on activities such as improved stormwater management is contradicted by Cotter's own statements that "[s]tormwater management and the prevention of water -rock interaction are the particular focus of environmental protection measures for the JD -8 mine." EPP page 1. Later in the EPP document, Cotter asserts that "[a]ny potential chemical loading to surface water will be controlled and minimized by the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) described in the Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment 4 of the EPP)." EPP at 23. This statement simply does not square with the construction schedule proposing to implement the new stormwater BMPs only at some indeterminate date in the future upon resumption of mining. The Division should reject Cotter's attempt to push off any meaningful work. At minimum, the Division should require additional detail to confirm any activities that will be required immediately. Page A -3